Kucinich is the antiwar candidate

[jpgray]

Graham wanted the resolution to be tougher, Dean was fine with the invasion given the UN's approval. Just about everyone else said the war was wrong unilaterally, but voted for the resolution anyway.

People who say Dean or Graham are "antiwar" candidates make my head spin. By the candidates' own statements, they are not. They supported marginally different forms of the same war--UN approval does not always make something correct, witness the USA's immunity from the international courts. The real different one on the war is Kucinich.

And please, no flames until you actually research what your candidate has said in the run-up.

edit: Let me say for the Dean-people, this is NOT an anti-Dean thread! His position was correct. He said if there was evidence of an IMMINENT threat by Iraq, he would first go to the UN and then attack unilaterally in 60 days. Moreover, he said of Powell's speech that it was unconvincing while all the media was praising it to the rooftops. That is smart thinking, but it isn't antiwar!

2nd edit: to clarify

[genius]

1. Well said

That's one of the hundreds of ways in which Kucinich outshines the other candidates.

[leftyandproud]

21. Kucinich!

He will NOT back down. We must unite behind him. No compromises. NO Bush lite.

[Jacobin]

2. Dean was fine with invasion "if UN approval"

So was France.
So was Russia.
So was everybody, because they KNEW it wouldn't give approval without a very good reason.

Bogus post on Dean's position.

[jpgray]

4. Research your candidate

He's not against unilateralism either, just against *this* unilateralism. He's right, of course, but that doesn't make him antiwar. He's a good candidate, but check out his positions and know his statements before you defend him.

[Jacobin]

6. I have checked them out.

Have you?

Before you make misleading posts about another dem candidate, check out his positions first.

If K gets the nomination, I'll vote for him. I prefer Dean and its not helpful to portray him as a pro-war candidate.

In some situations, a unilateral strike might be justified (for instance a nuclear first strike by NK agains the U.S). I think K would agree to that too. If he doesn't I disagree with him.


Gratuitous Dem candidate bashing won't help us unseat Smirk.

[jpgray]

9. Where do I say bad thigns about Dean?

Why do you insist on some negative interpretation? Do I say Dean is prowar? No. I say he is not antiwar, and he isn't.

[Jacobin]

11. If K is ALWAYS anti-war then who would vote for him?

I'm not Amish, and most americans are not.

The implication in your post is that he was in favor of invading Iraq (with UN approval), and that this made him not an anti-war candidate.

What percentage of the demographic are you chasing? 0.0003%?

[jpgray]

15. To me "antiwar" means

Protecting the Bill of Rights and the borders. And that's all.

[Classical_Liberal]

26. I am looking for antistupidwar, not antiwar

What percentage of the population is looking for someone who wouldn't under any circumstances go to war. What percentage is actually pacifist?

[Cocoa]

3. Dean and Graham would probably agree with you

I don't think either of them would want to be called the antiwar candidate.

Kucinich, however, does seem to have centered his campaign around that issue, from what I've seen.

[jpgray]

5. Dean is an excellent candidate

but he is not antiwar, he is anti-this war. He isn't anti-unilateralism either, he's anti-this unilateralism. His remarks have been very consistent on this.

[Cocoa]

7. he was very quick to endorse intervention in Liberia

I think he was intentionally killing off the idea that he's across-the-board against using our troops.

[Jacobin]

8. How many times will this need to be de-constructed?

If NK attacked the US in a nuclear strike, would you think K would go to the UN for permission to retaliate?

[jpgray]

10. Do I say Dean's position is a bad thing?

.

[Jacobin]

12. Course not. That's why you are supporting him....right?

:-)

Enough with the games. On to something more productive.

[jpgray]

13. Read the edit of the original post

Dean isn't antiwar! That's all this thread says. What do you take issue with?

[killbotfactory]

14. Kucinich would have supported military action...

If Iraq posed an imminent threat.

The UN would not authorize military action unless Iraq was an imminent threat to the US or other countries in the region.

Dean would support military action if it was approved by the UN and was with a real multilateral force. I don't think that's a marginal difference from the way the war panned out.

But you're right, Dean is not against all wars or military actions.

[Ignoramus]

16. extinction

From what I gather so far, Kucinich is the closest to being in favor of democracy and opposed to imminent human extinction.

Kucinich does not oppose GMOs I gather, so he is at least claiming that he will not oppose a major force pushing for human extinction. But, at least he claims to be opposed to globalization and aggressive militarim.

Dean did have blatantly racist language (anti-arab) and was saying that we need a strong military to combat terrorism... In other words, we should continue to fund nutcases who spend there days dreaming up new horrors to inflict on the world. In other words, he thinks bombing innocents is the appropriate way to deal with an attack by individuals. Recently instead of reversing this he has simply obfuscated so there is less to attack about what he says because it's vague.

I think that the best intentioned person, saddled with the role of President of this country, could not possibly be trusted. Anyone would would really make change would not be allowed to do it. The real fight is not something that can be won by choosing the right President. I will go vote for the least damaging person in November. If it's Kucinich I'll be much less depressed than otherwise.

[JI7]

17. "Dean did have blatantly racist language (anti-arab) "

ignoramus, can you please explain the above statement "Dean did have blatantly racist language (anti-arab) ". what did he say that was racist or anti arab ? and can you give me his exact quote if possible.

[Ignoramus]

19. qvote

I can't give an exact quote. It was on his web page, but it was changed within the last couple of weeks.

The gyst of it was that he said about Isreal/Palestine that Israel must be free from terrorism and that he favored a two-state solution in which palestinians would be moved somewhere where they could not launch attacks on Israelis. He said nothing about the Palestinians needing to be free of Israeli terrorism.

If you're going to ask how that is racist, he is justifying apartheid. He is saying that all Palestinians, as a group, should be held accountable for the actions of individual terrorists.

So, I feel like I should mention my view on safety for Israelis from attack, which is that Terrorism should be treated as a criminal act, not a national defense issue. I'm in favor of a military response to attacks on a nations borders, for example shooting down a plane that is coming to bomb you. I'm not in favor of bombing a neighborhood where you hear there are gang members.

Problems should be dealt with lawfully. Where this works are with states and individuals. Terrorism is not a state or an individual, it is a policy or a phenomenon. So, while you can't arrest terrorism or blow up terrorism, you can arrest terrorists (or bomb terrorists together with innocents, i.e. you can be a terrorist yourself). Ban state terror. Arrest terrorists.

[Sava]

18. anti-war at all costs is stupid, quite frankly

I was opposed to the war because there wasn't proof, it was too expensive, the world didn't support us, and it was a big pork-project for companies close to the administration (Halliburton). But if Saddam did had WMD's cocked and ready to go, if he was an imminent threat to the US, I would support going in to get him.

Dean is a candidate who makes his decisions based on the facts, not idealogies. That's the type of person I want. Kucinich's and other liberals' anti-war stances based on principles are admirable, but terribly naive, and would leave this country defenseless and open to attack. My grandparents didn't come to this country just so some peaceniks could make it easier for a Hitler or Stalin to take over. That's the problem with America... IMO... too many people don't know what its like to be in a war... to have your friends or family killed by some dictator, or to be threatened by bombs. The extreme Right wants to invade and kill everybody... the extreme Left wants to smoke blunts and sing "KumBaYa". Neither are idealogies that I want leading this country.

[revcarol]

20. OH, puleez!!

Kucinch wants a STRONG DEFENSE, JUST NOT RICH DEFENSE CONTRACTORS. He's not a "peaceik" idealogue who believes in peace whatever and whenever.We would NOT be defenseless and open to attack!!

There are times that military action is called for, per Dennis, and these include IMMINENT THREATS AND IMMINENT DANGER. He wants defense to be defense and NOT OFFENSE, not continuous aggressive war...

We would be SAFER, because we would stand for peace,respect international institutions such as the UN and treaties, join the International Criminal Court(would have prevented a war if Saddam were on trial?), and try to solve problems through negotiation FIRST, rather than just resort to war.

FURTHER, we would have bi-lateral trade treaties that benefit BOTH countries, instead of US multi-nationals going in and raping the environment and going for the quick buck on cheaper and cheaper wages. That would stop a LOT of anti-Americanism and make us SAFER.

Get your FACTS STRAIGHT.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. That's interesting. Thanks for clarifying

I have always gotten the impresssion that he was a pacifist.

[Sava]

31. ditto

from what I see on these boards and what I hear about Kucinich, he walks, talks, and acts like a peacenik candidate...

[JNelson6563]

22. Only a moron would take a complete

pacifist stance and be totally anti-war (especially as leader of the "world's only super-power"). Kucinich is no moron.

Julie

[JohnKleeb]

23. he belives in no unjust wars

His father I think is a marine vet as are his brothers. He believes in making peace a priority and making war only if we need it and we hardly ever need war rarely ever do evil men like the men who came about in the 20's and 30's come about.

[JNelson6563]

29. So does Dean

so I guess there's not much difference on this issue.

Julie

[poskonig]

24. Kucinich is also the *pacifist* candidate.

I agree about Dean. He is pragmatic, and certainly not an isolationist.

[dajabr]

25. "Dean was fine with the invasion given the UN's approval"

Not really... But you are right. Dean is not 100% anti-war, he's pro National Security and anti-National Aggression:

Published on Thursday, April 17, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong
by Howard Dean

Note: After reading a recent article that called into question my opposition to the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, I wanted to state my position clearly to set the record straight. I appreciate that the editors of Common Dreams have given me this opportunity.

When Congress approved the President’s authorization to go to war in Iraq – no matter how well-intentioned – it was giving the green light to the President to set his Doctrine of preemptive war in motion. It now appears that Iraq was just the first step. Already, the Bush Administration is apparently eyeing Syria and Iran as the next countries on its target list. The Bush Doctrine must be stopped here.

Many in Congress who voted for this resolution should have known better. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore cautioned in his speech in San Francisco that “if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.” And that is why it was such a big mistake for Congress to allow the president to set this dangerous precedent.

Too much is at stake. We have taken decades of consensus on the conduct of foreign policy – bipartisan consensus in the United States and consensus among our allies in the world community – and turned it on its head. It could well take decades to repair the damage this President and his cohort of right-wing ideological advisors have done to our standing in the international community.

Theirs is a radical view of our role in the world. The President who campaigned on a platform of a humble foreign policy has instead begun implementing a foreign policy characterized by dominance, arrogance and intimidation. The tidal wave of support and goodwill that engulfed us after the tragedy of 9/11 has dried up and been replaced by undercurrents of distrust, skepticism and hostility by many who had been among our closest allies.

More: http://commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm

And, a more recent declaration of his stance:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=about_issues_national

edit: spelling

[Classical_Liberal]

28. and since the UN weren't going to approve it?

what is the point.

[dajabr]

30. Hi! I'm sorry, was that a rhetorical question?

NT

[Nottingham]

32. Got to agree here! He looks like a Genius!

Cause he was right all along! :bounce:

[Desertrose]

33. DK is PRO PEACE....

that doesn't mean he would not take the means necessary to DEFEND our country....
To try all peaceful means to find a solution seems to me the most responsible, mature & common sense way to solve problems & issues.

What Bush has done is a pre-emptive WAR...excuse me, but WTF does that mean?? pre-emptive??? Means to me that you are basically attacking another country...since when did the US start attacking smaller countries with no real defense?? and to lie about what weapons they have to make yourself look better??

This regime has whipped everyone into a state of fear (what color fear level are we on today...hmmm?? skittles yellow- mmm...taste the fear!!)They are & have been capitalizing on that fear ever since 9/11. Dennis Kucinich is offering us a way out of that fear.

Hasn't the US always been a leader & not a schoolyard bully?? We do not need another "scrapper" and someone who feels the need to support an overbalanced and overbudget military force. It is time for someone with commonsense and the vision for something beyond arms buildup & takeover of oilrich countries...to give back to the people...all the people.

Nope Dennis in not anti-war...he is pro peace and pro people. There is a difference.
we need Dennis Kucinich!

Peace will prevail
DR

(edit) typos also seem to prevail :)